changes are needed, we need keep moving

[Pekka Savola]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> If you mean that it only takes 1 verify vote for any version of an update
> to publish an update (across all versions) than I stand by what I said.
> Otherwise, I'd have to ask that you clarify what you mean.

Yes, this is what I said.  It currently requires 1 verify vote to 
VERIFY one version (in the past, the rules said two for each, but 
packages never got out that way so it has been taken down to 1).

What I say is that if folks don't care enough to report their 
successes or problems within two weeks of someone formally first test 
of the package, they deserve what they get.

That said, I could also live with two verify votes (for any version) 
plus the similar timeout, but I think timeliness is more important.

>> Patches are typically very similar across all the
>> versions.  The sanity of the patches has already been checked at
>> PUBLISH.  Checking that the program actually works in one platform is
>> definitely better than nothing.
>
> I didn't read your statement that way earlier.  If you mean we get enough
> verify votes for a version, then publish the rest, fine.  But I thought
> you said if we have one, single, lonely vote we should publish just
> because of a timeout, which is bad.

FYI, one verify vote is sufficient to VERIFY a distro version right 
now, so this is why I said one measly verify vote.

> For example, one of our first (if not our first) kernel updates published
> had to be immediately re-issued.  It was verified by several people, so
> it should have been good.  But all testers tested it with grub, and the
> problem was in lilo.  So we need to have a larger number of people voting,
> to make sure we cover enough cases to allow the QA testing to be at all
> reasonable.  Even with our current system, errors get through because
> the testing sample just isn't big enough.  So I'm against anything that
> in principle allows us to publish with less testing in less-diverse
> environments.

We can't avoid these errors completely by testing, because there just 
aren't enough people willing to do the testing and report the errors. 
We'll just have to publish and revise if something breaks.

> If you want commercial support, buy it from Red Hat or Progeny or someone.
> Otherwise, if you want "free" support you have to "work" for it.

Personally, I think this is a good principle.  You may also get free 
support without any work, but you surely don't get the right to 
complain about it unless you contribute.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings